The current paper document-processing environment is dependent upon paper processing, which can be inefficient. What is needed is an efficient electronic paper document design process that confirms a paper document design that will be compatible with current electronic capture, storage, and processing system, which are used to alleviate or otherwise mitigate the dependence upon paper form of items such as personal and business checks, for example. Since a vast majority of checks are transported physically via air from one bank to another, and planes can be grounded for a variety of reasons, substantial costs can be incurred by banks due to check processing being delayed. The current system relies upon the physical movement of original paper checks from the bank where the checks are deposited to the bank that pays them, which can be inefficient and costly.
Under current law, a bank may send the original paper check for payment unless it has an electronic payment agreement with the paying bank. Under Check 21 legislation in the United States, by authorizing the use of a new negotiable instrument called a “substitute check” (aka image replacement document), electronic check processing is enabled without mandating that any bank change its current check collection practices. The substitute check is a paper reproduction of an original check that contains an image of the front and back of the original check, which is suitable for automated processing in the same manner as the original check, as long as the check image meets other technical requirements, such as having mandated image quality, otherwise referred to as image readiness that includes acceptable print contrast between the check background and any critical data (e.g. signatures, printed amounts, etc.) placed over the background.
As a result of Check 21, banks that wish to scan the original paper check to create a substitute check require it to satisfy print contrast signal (PCS) standards with respect to the check background. Print contrast acceptability is the design attribute of a check that ensures optimum recognition of amounts, legibility of handwriting, and reasonably low file size that are positioned overtop of any background design images on the surface of the check. Current testing of print contrast is done by calculating a subjectively selected portion of the background of the printed document (e.g. check) using a static background image sample as representative for the print contrast of the entire document. For example, excessive background clutter resulting from the background image(s) causes interference with the legibility of handwritten data (i.e. critical data) and low background reflectance of the background image(s) causes handwritten data to drop out due to insufficient contrast.
Unfortunately, current testing for print quality only uses a statically selected background sample to test print contrast signal compliance of the check document design, which can be subjective as each tester can get a different print contrast signal of a check depending upon the static background image sample that is selected by the tester. This manual testing process is inefficient in cost and time due to the check designs that may pass some PCS testing only to fail PCS standards when processed by other check image processing equipment.
Further, it is known that a magnetic reader can identify each magnetized character and symbol of the MICR line using logical analysis algorithms of the magnetic wave patterns that the characters produce. However, while MICR characters may be read magnetically and pass magnetic testing in comparison to magnetic waveform templates as is know in the art, it is recognised that optical characteristics of the same MICR characters (in particular in the presence of competing optical print information such as background markings and improper reflectance of the surface of the document, for example) can cause the same MICR characters to be rejected due to optical defects (e.g. voids in the lines/strokes of the characters, incorrect visual inter or intra spacing of character lines/strokes, and/or incorrect heights/widths of the character lines/strokes) of the printed characters 14. Further, for non-MICR markings on the document, there is no magnetic waveform to rely upon to objectively test the optical character of the markings IM.
Accordingly, there exists a substantial disadvantage with correct document imaging techniques and corresponding optical quality testing techniques for OCR read visual features of the documents as print contrast signal compliance of the check document design can be subjective as each tester can get a different print contrast signal of a check depending upon the static background image sample that is selected by the tester. This manual testing process is inefficient in cost and time due to the check designs that may pass some PCS testing only to fail PCS standards when processed by other check image processing equipment. MICR testing via magnetic methods does not have the added potential for error generation of optical testing due to the print contrast and/or reflectance issues inherent in the OCR reading of the print characters, for example to counteract the effects of background images on the document surface, as the document print surrounding the MICR characters should not contain magnetic ink.